Here's the translation. I am confused by the document, so possibly another translator like Livio or Tessa will get a chance to look it over too.

The record is Dated Dec 17, 1872 at 7 P.M. in the town of Bagnoli Irpino. Appearing at the town hall was midwife, Angela Frasca, the daughter of deceased Vincenzo. She was age 75. She reported that at 6 on the 16th of the current month, in her own house at #18 Strada Municipio, a male infant was born to Maria Marano, the daughter of deceased Filippo Marano. Maria was the wife of Vincenzo Clemente, and they were both peasant/farmers in this town. It was this infant whom the midwife was presenting at the town hall and to whom the parents intended to give the name Aniello. Witnesses were Giambattista Abbiente, the son of deceased Raffaele, age 40, and Lorenzo Calderone, age 50, the son of deceased Antonio. Both were peasant/farmers living in this town. The informant and witnesses were illiterate and did not sign the document.

As to the notation-this is where the confusion comes in.It states that, with an act of notary Luigi Eugenio Cione of Bagno di Irpino, on Sept 21, 1892, Aniello Clemente was recognized and legitimized as the son of spouses Vincenzo Clemente and Mariangiola Marano.

So I am confused because, in the body of the birth record itself, it appears that the parents of the infant were already married, although I don't see anything in the record which indicates why the father of the infant did not make the presentation himself. So was the mother's first name in the record in error-since it is Maria in the record and Mariangiola in the notary's act some 20 years later? I really don't know and hope one of the other translators on the forum will give their opinion on this, as I don't want to give you incorrect info. I don't see anything in the record itself which would indicate that the infant was born illegitimately.Erudita

Yes it is confusing Erudita In Aniello Clemente's marriage publication it shows his father Vincenzo lived in a different town and his wife Maria lived in Bagnoli maybe they weren't together no more that's why they recognized him as there child for the marriage consentPG LINKhttps://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/T ... 2050764809

adelfio wrote:Yes it is confusing Erudita In Aniello Clemente's marriage publication it shows his father Vincenzo lived in a different town and his wife Maria lived in Bagnoli maybe they weren't together no more that's why they recognized him as there child PG LINKhttps://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/T ... 2050764809

Marty

MartyThe marriage publication is from 1891 during the period of the mass male migration, when many men left Italy and Sicily for the Americas, and left their wives and children behind in Italy. So the fact that the father was a resident in NY, while the mother was a resident in the town in Italy, does not mean that the parents were permanently separated in the sense that they no longer considered themselves a married couple. It just means that the father probably came to this country to scout out the possibility of relocating his family here or to make some money to send back to his family in Italy with the intention of only staying in the U.S. long enough to achieve that goal and possibly not to permanently relocate here. I don't think the marriage publication in any way helps with the confusion created by the notation in the margin of the birth record.Erudita

adelfio wrote:The only reason I suggested that situation is the written part of the marriage publication showing instead of coming back for the wedding he just sent his consent from a notary in New York

Marty

Marty

I've seen many marriage records over the years where the father did not get back to Italy for a child's marriage because he was in North or South America at the time. The other thing that bothers me is that the act of recognition is from 1892, a year after this marriage publication. I would like to see a copy of that record, if it is available, to see what info is in it and whether it sheds any light on the situation.

adelfio wrote:The only reason I suggested that situation is the written part of the marriage publication showing instead of coming back for the wedding he just sent his consent from a notary in New York

Marty

Marty

I've seen many marriage records over the years where the father did not get back to Italy for a child's marriage because he was in North or South America at the time. The other thing that bothers me is that the act of recognition is from 1892, a year after this marriage publication. I would like to see a copy of that record, if it is available, to see what info is in it and whether it sheds any light on the situation.

adelfio wrote:The only reason I suggested that situation is the written part of the marriage publication showing instead of coming back for the wedding he just sent his consent from a notary in New York

Marty

Marty

I've seen many marriage records over the years where the father did not get back to Italy for a child's marriage because he was in North or South America at the time. The other thing that bothers me is that the act of recognition is from 1892, a year after this marriage publication. I would like to see a copy of that record, if it is available, to see what info is in it and whether it sheds any light on the situation.

Aniello was only 18 and therefore considered a minor at the time of his marriage which meant that he needed the consent of both parents, if they were both alive. So the fact that the father went to a notary in NY to get a notarized copy of his consent still does not clarify anything, at least to me it doesn't.

adelfio wrote:Well guess the only way to verify if the info on the birth record is correct is to get the marriage record of Vincenzo Clemente and Maria Marano

Marty

MartyThe marriage records for the early 1870s are not online-only marriage publications. I went through the 1871 publications and came up empty handed. Now looking at 1872, but again marriage publications don't prove that a marriage actually took place, so I'm not sure that this is worth the effort. Erudita

Just one thing I meant to add earlier. If a woman was unwed, then the birth of her child may have taken place in the home of the midwife, which is where I believe the birth took place in this instance.

Without additional online records to unravel this mystery though, I think the situation may just remain that-a mystery.

This is my understanding of what Sabino has written in Italian. Hopefully I have everything correct.Erudita

Sabino is telling you that the parents of Aniello Clemente were married after the birth of their first child. The parents contracted marriage on Jan 14, 1874 (unfortunately the act of matrimony is not online), whereas Aniello had been born on Dec 16, 1872 from their natural union. The mother's name was Maria Gaetana on the marriage record, and not Mariangela, which was reported in the margin of his birth record. It seems that, at the time of their marriage, the parents did not know that they were supposed to implement the recognition of their illegitimate son, and so his recognition did not take place until he was required to register for his military obligation, which would have been in 1892, when he was 18 years old. It seems that there were two different acts of recognition in 1892-one by the father who was living in NY and another by the mother who was living in the town. So the mother recognized her son on July 16, 1892, but the father recognized him on Aug 10, 1892. There was also a mistake in the transcription of the “Act of Recognition” which stated that the parents’ marriage had taken place in 1875 when, in fact, it had taken place in 1874. The father’s act of recognition was transcribed on the 21st of Sept 1892 (the date which appears in the margin of Aniello's birth record) and the mother’s on Sept 20th.

According to Sabino, there was a child born to the couple in 1890, but the father was not in Italy at the time of that child’s birth either. Just a note on my part though, which should be obvious-if the child born in 1890 was the child of the same father, then the father had to have been making trips back and forth from NY to the town to have impregnated his wife, even though he may have been back in NY by the time of the actual birth. So, even though they were living apart, Aniello's parents were still very much a married couple. His father had obviously made more than one trip to the U.S., so you should search for him on multiple passenger lists, if you have not already done so.

I hope this info provided to you by Sabino helps to resolve the mystery concerning Aniello's birth.

Thank you for all who transcribed! What i can tell you, is his father, Vincenzo was in living in NY and routinely traveled between NY and Bagnoli, from 1887 to (To be determined). I cant wait to hear what Sabino has discovered. To my amazement when i came to read the transcription i was very much excited about the "Mystery"...

Grazie AllKrissi

****EDIT*****I didnt see the interpretation; Thank you very much Erudita, I believe you assumption about the traveling is correct. I also believe he would travel back to Bagnoli to get other men in the family to work in the US. Yes there are other children i have found born 1881 and 1890, both recorded as Vincenzo being the father. Mystery solved! Great work everyone!!

The typical Italian lineage dates from circa 1600, and for most of us that's reasonably profound. But who wants to be "typical" when you might be able to trace a lineage into the 1500s or even into the Middle Ages? Because success in this field requires practice and perseverance, as well as skills m...

In order to provide you with the best online experience we use cookies.